China’s President XI Jinping speech on the 95th anniversary of the Communist party of China [Updated]

Chinese President XI Jinping in his speech on Friday the 1st of July, noted the strategic need for an alliance between Russia and China, which he believes will determine the future world order.

“The world is on the brink of radical changes. We see how the EU is gradually crumbling and the US economy is collapsing. This will end in a new world order. So, in 10 years we will have a new world order unlike anything before in which the key will be the Union of Russia and China,” said XI.

In his opinion the relations of Russia and China should not be confined to the economic relations, these countries should create an alternative military alliance.

“We are now witnessing the aggressive actions by the United States against Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China may form an alliance before which NATO will be powerless and it will put the end to the imperialist aspirations of the West,” he said.

Also XI is confident that China needs to modernize its army.

“The creation of an army that conforms to the international status of our country, is a strategic task. We must combine economic development with the development of defense to modernize the army, to make it modern and standardized… We should comprehensively promote reform in the military sphere, to create an army that is disciplined and can win,” said XI Jinping, speaking at the solemn meeting on the occasion of the 95th anniversary of the Communist party of China.

The world order should be decided not by one country or a few, but by broad international agreement, said Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, on Friday.

“It’s for the people of all countries to decide through consultations what international order and global governance systems can benefit the world and people of all nations,” Xi said here at a rally marking the Party’s 95th founding anniversary.

Xi said China will actively participate in the building of global governance system and strive to contribute Chinese wisdom to the improvement of global governance.

“China will work with people of all countries to push the world order and global governance system toward a more just and reasonable direction,” he said.

China advocates that people of all countries join together to change pressure into power, risks into opportunities, and replace confrontation with cooperation and monopolies with win-win deals, said Xi.

China will always follow a path of peaceful development and an opening up policy featuring mutual benefit and win-win deals, he added.

The purpose of China’s foreign policy is safeguarding world peace and promoting common development, according to Xi.

“China is willing to expand common interests with other countries, build a new type of international relations with cooperation and mutual benefit as its core values,” said Xi.

The president noted China’s development of a more comprehensive model of international cooperation, such as the “Belt and Road” initiatives.

“We are not growing our sphere of influence, but supporting mutual development of all countries. We are not building our backyard garden, but a public garden for all countries,” he claimed.

“China advocates a community of common destiny of mankind, and opposes the Cold War mentality and zero-sum game. China holds that regardless of size, strength and wealth, all countries are equal, and all peoples have the right to choose their own development paths,” said Xi.

China opposes imposing one’s will on others, interfering with other countries’ domestic affairs and the strong bullying the weak.

“However, China will never give up our lawful rights. Chinese people do not believe fallacy and nor are we afraid of evil forces. Chinese people do not make trouble, but we are not cowards when involved in trouble,” said Xi. Endi

Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin agreed to beef up mutual support and enhance the political and strategic mutual trust.

Hailing the role of close high-level contact in advancing bilateral ties and promoting regional and global development, Xi said the establishment of the strategic partnership of coordination 20 years ago demonstrated the strategic nature of the bilateral ties.

This year also marks the 15th anniversary of the signing of the China-Russia Good-Neighborly Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, which Xi said affirmed the two countries’ friendship from generation to generation.

The above two strategic decisions serve the fundamental interests of the two countries and the two peoples, and conform to the trend of times, Xi said.

He called for more political mutual support between the two countries.

China and Russia should support each other on issues concerning core interests and constantly strengthen political and strategic mutual trust, Xi said.

Noting that both nations are the world’s major economies and emerging markets, he said they should deepen pragmatic cooperation and alignment of interests, and push forward the dovetailing of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) for broader regional economic cooperation.

China and Russia have seen increasing cultural activities and people-to-people exchanges in recent years, which help promote mutual understanding and traditional friendship between the two peoples, Xi said.

He also called on the two countries to carry out closer coordination on major international and regional hot spot issues, so as to jointly safeguard the security of the neighborhood.

China and Russia should resolutely safeguard the purposes and principles of the UN charter, the basic norms of the international relations, global strategic balance and stability, as well as international justice, Xi said.

The two countries should advocate disputes settlement through friendly consultations and peaceful negotiations and be committed to establishing a new type of international relations featuring reciprocity and cooperation, so as to safeguard international peace and development.

As China’s strategic coordination partner, Russia stands ready to extend mutual support and understanding on issues concerning each others’ core interests and major concerns, Putin said.

He called for more cooperation in trade, energy, high technology, security and people-to-people exchanges, as well as synergizing the construction of the EEU and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Russia and China share similar positions in international affairs, and it is necessary for them to maintain close communication and coordination, Putin said.

The two heads of state signed a joint statement on the bilateral relations, a joint statement on strengthening global strategic stability and another on promoting the development of information and cyber space after their talks.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and top legislator Zhang Dejiang also met with Putin on Saturday.

Li said during the meeting that China stands ready to align with the EEU proposed by Russia and reach institutional arrangements on trade and investment at an early date.

He also vowed to expand the scope of energy cooperation in areas such as oil and gas, nuclear energy, coal and electricity, promote mutual investment and big-project cooperation, and conduct financial cooperation in currency swap, payment system, and within multilateral framework.

When meeting with Putin, Zhang said exchanges and cooperation between the two countries’ legislative bodies have been productive, as they learned from each others’ legislative experiences, helped advance economic, trade and local-level cooperation, and coordinate and cooperate with each other in multilateral parliamentary orginazations.

He called on the two countries’ legislative bodies to maintain sound communication so as to provide legal support for bilateral cooperation in various fields.

Putin is currently on a state visit to China, and this is his fourth trip to China since Chinese President Xi Jinping took office in 2013.

UPDATE

In regard to the quotations posted above and attributed to President XI.

This text was published across multiple Russian language sources attributing it to President XI’s July 1st speech, or his meeting with President Putin. I can’t verify the authenticity, since I don’t know Chinese and can only rely on the Russian language sources. As we know it, the West keeps a lid on what’s going on between China and Russia.

He says that China had many opportunities to attack Russia over the centuries, the last was in 1990s, but it never did.

He says that China understands that if Russia is destroyed, China will disappear also. The West seeks to turn all of the Chinese people into mindless murderers fashioned from the Ukrainian Right Sector to de-populate the Eurasian territories for the West. The Chinese government stands against all of these plans. The West puts huge pressure on China today to abandon its peaceful stance, but the Western governments fail to make China to act against it’s own national interest and national character. Chinese want to protect their culture and nation, and refusing to become the world Gendarme.

Thank you for your interest,

Scott

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

I suspect it is clear to the globe that the US is begging Russia and China to begin bombing the US.

Since Russia is still a key nation of Europe, no matter the three centuries of Russian demonisation begun by Britain, any military push-back from either or both Russia and China will target the one country never bombed, the USA.

Putin has said as much. He does not speak carelessly.

After all, the US Congress voted to declare WW war on Russia, was it two years ago?Note the type of speech only used by Putin and Li does not go out of it’s way to humiliate European or American leaders or other global leaders. Nor to state untruths as if true. Neither Russia nor China use propaganda as government policy. Neither would be so suicidal.

I have read in Chinese the whole Xi’s speech on the 95th anniversary of the Communist party of China and nowhere I could find those paragraphs:

“The world is on the brink of radical changes. We see how the EU is gradually crumbling and the US economy is collapsing. This will end in a new world order. So, in 10 years we will have a new world order unlike anything before in which the key will be the Union of Russia and China,” and

“We are now witnessing the aggressive actions by the United States against Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China may form an alliance before which NATO will be powerless and it will put the end to the imperialist aspirations of the West,” .

Thanks, bp, most appreciated! Have listened to 20 mins so far. Some words you never hear anymore in North American political speeches: theory, theories, scientific (in reference to governance that is, not vaccines or GMOs). A “socialist road with Chinese characteristics”. Found it interesting that he mentioned social/socialist/socialism in the first 10 mins in similar amounts to wealth/prosperity/rich. I wondered if he was perhaps balancing different views within the CPC? ” lifting people out of poverty” – On first impression, his talk gives the sense of the government protecting the nation and the people of the nation. As a Westerner, I am feeling resentful, to put it bluntly. I don’t know what happens in China after the speech concludes, but it sure is nice to hear this kind of talk spoken out loud from the govt.

I was wondering about those parts of the speech too. It comes from a Russian non-official site,according to what is shown by the article. I was hoping for a comment from someone that had seen the original speech in Chinese. While I think it would be a good thing. And it may be the “thinking” of Russian and Chinese leaders. It doesn’t sound like words that would be spoken “publicly” by either leadership. Both the Russians and Chinese are much too diplomatic in their public statements to do that.And both have made a point to disclaim that they want an “official” military alliance.So I think that is more “wishful” thinking on some on our side instead of fact.

Uncle Bob, I wonder if some non-Chinese person, like me, who really struggles at times with the subtlety and intricacy of Chinese political speak, decided to just do a quick ‘translation’ into a tabloid journalism version. :-) “So what you’re really saying is…”

I very much admire the Chinese for this quality – which I am lacking. My capacity for this careful, intricate use of subtlety is limited.

Yes,the Chinese are very subtle and diplomatic when they make “official” speeches. You’ll notice the type/manner of the other verified parts of the speech.To me they contrast with the sections that website reported. The Chinese and Russians are very picky in how they “phrase” things.And more importantly they have made a point of not proposing actual military alliances with each other in the past. I’m pretty sure they have an “unspoken” agreement to cooperate militarily if the need is there. And while I’d like them to actually form a public alliance,I don’t see that in the near future. The Chinese are also heavily trying,through the Silk Road,for one to tap into the EU market. I don’t see them publicly insulting the EU,talking about its collapse.Its totally out of character to their manner of diplomacy. I think we just have a case of the first website going into wishful thinking. You can be fairly certain if it was true RT would be reporting it. And Putin would have made a statement or two about it.

Agree with your conclusions about China and the EU. That’s also my impression. When it comes to official speeches from the govt of China, I need someone to translate them into English since I don’t speak Chinese. And then I need someone to translate the translation since I don’t “speak Chinese” very well either. :-) Which makes me susceptible to media bias or interpretation.

Google doesn’t find those words anywhere on my search but Saker and the Pro Russian site. Perhaps Saker is being manipulated, only he would know who sent the Link to him. I agree the Chinese keep their cards very close to their chest. It is of note that this blog allows dissent to be expressed.

the Russian site which the quote is from is very 3rd rate and contains a lot of clearly bogus content. I’m 99% sure they just plain invented the first two quotes, as I didnt see them (or anything close) in Xi Jinping’s speech on CCTV either (which as usual was formuilated in very careful and vacuous terms).

Also, the article Saker quoted above doesn’t match this op-ed by a Chinese academic published in the “Global Times.”

“Indeed, the Kremlin’s “turn to the East” is only a contingency plan, which was basically put into effect under pressure. In the light of this, Russia’s collaboration with China is more a matter of expediency, instead of a “strategy.” … No matter what the Sino-Russian bilateral relationship is going through for the moment, be it big deals, Russia’s “turn to the East” strategy or the Greater Eurasian partnership, none of them are long-term strategies, but only tactical cooperation.

Due to the different core values of the two sides, cooperation between Beijing and Moscow is mostly aimed at third parties. Yet history has proven numerous times that any collaboration based on considerations aimed at a third party will be bound to change with the times.”

But, this, may do not have a name right now, but this is an ideology after all. If you want, I will put a name to it: “Religious Conservatism” ( Christian Democracy anywhere? ) . Well, an ideology. Add to this an ancient Russian input and you have “White Russians´ ideology”.
So, after the many months passed we arrive in the same place.

When you fight Communism to extermination, your are putting in practice an ideology, namely, “we allow here whatever, except Communism”. Sounds something old, nothing new……
Ask any elderly Spanish, Latin American, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and even Russian, and he/she will give you a name for your ideology.

On the other hand, when you say “we”, are you confirming, definitely, that instead of a community made of volunteers coming from all countries and all ideologies in the world fighting the AngloZionist Empire and looking for world peace, there is a core here with an “ideology” trying that things do not go too much far from the “rea”l objectives?

With all my respect, let me ask you… How did you arrive to the conclusion that a statement “we have no ideology” equates to a statement ” there is a core here with an “ideology.”?

Not just equates. but in your own words, “confirming” and “definitely.”

Would it be more acceptable for you, if I wrote that while we all have our personal ideologies, “we” as a community don’t allow the uniform dominance of one ideology over all others?

We do, however, have a common theme here, which is Russia and all things related.

That’s why there is no cognitive dissonance in having Russian Orthodox icons and St. George ribbon being present on a page along with speeches of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, and along with interviews of Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah.

This video has been posted many times on different threads, which shows much interest in the topic. There are many concerns, queries and interpretations on China’s politics expressed as well. Would one (or more)of the Saker’s Mandarin-speaking, Chinese citizen bloggers be willing to provide some insight or perspective? I think it would be widely read and appreciated.

Isn’t Chinese communism only “communism” on the surface, i.e. on the very top party structure that might be similiar to that of the Soviet Union? In the core society it’s probably more capitalistic than the US – which is actually quite socialist by past standards. Setting HUGE trade tariffs on outside products is one example, and it implies usually that the US cannot handle a free market economy in certain sectors, so they practice it only very selectively. All the monopolized insurance policies like Obamacare are another example.

Thanks for the most important strategic briefing on what Chinese leadership says about collaboration with Russia. Could you please post the English translation of the original speech.

The Eurasian Resistance with Russia and China as core, is the only hope for survival of the humanity in future.

However, without a strong ideological base, Chinese ruling party (they abandoned it) and Russian ruling party (they forgot the terminology), the leadership may find it extremely difficult to stand firm against imperialist capitalist world order by AZ.

We should not trust the Chineese long term will.
“Xi said China will actively participate in the building of global governance system and strive to contribute Chinese wisdom to the improvement of global governance”.

There should not be a “global governance”. That is what we should learn from USA, UN, USSR and EU.

@bimboplumpe raised a similar sentiment in a comment on Escobar’s Pearl RIver Delta article. I’ve transferred over a bit of @bimboplumpe’s comments, although I admit I found it difficult to follow in moments. Here is the conclusion, which ties into your feeling:

“My question marks are, however:

1. how immune will the Chinese Political Professionals be in the long run against infections by the Western Professional Criminals (when they have to deal with them all the time)? and

2. when with that speed of development, the whole world will be Chinese by 2050, where will the Chinese Political Professional continue to expand after that.?”

And then, some preceding commentary leading to those questions (kind of thought-provoking, I thought):

“My problems with communism began with the name „party“ (meaning „one of several parts composing a larger something“) when there was to be only one of them. In modern terms, where everybody is taught everything in specialised schools (The Secrets of Sock Selling in 45 easy lessons!), „The Party“ would better be translated as „the profession of the politicians in this country“, and the completely new thing that communism brought about was that while in the new age of democracy (at the end of millenia of feudalism or grass root democracy at village or tribe level) the new profession of being a politician (an elected ruler) was understood to be exclusively an affair for hobbyists („everyone can do it! YOU should join us, too“), and everybody was entitled to bring forward his most beloved subject, and the voters also hobbyists (not knowing what was at stake and what the options were)… while this was and still is the official foundation of democrady in a Democracy… the commies started to professionalise politics. Marx wrote down what, according to him and in his days, it was all about, and what one should do, and the communists tried to accomplish this: the building of a better society not on personal likings of this or that führer, but on a scientific understanding of necessities, goals, methods etc. THEN, of course, the profession and the study leading to it would be a general and universal thing – a science and not a „party“… just as a well in a catholic monastery gets drilled according to the general professional knowledge of well drillers, and not according to the Bible. So, let professional work be done by professionals – for inventions, for economy, for wells, for health, for foreign politics… etc.

What I want to say is, in short, that the profession of doing politics should be treated like other professions, and my impression is that this is done now (today, and before, and hopefully also in the future) in China (through „The Party“) and in the same way also in Putin‘s Russia, for the same reasons, although „The Party“ does not exist anymore. But the profession does – and this is why during the last months everybody on sites like this one applauded Putin for his „professionalism“ or „realism“ in handling crises, while the general idiocy of the western world is its amateurishness, which is, among other faults, easily steerable from the outside, by professionals of other professions – like thieves, robbers etc with names like Soros, Rotzchild etc. What the Chinese professionals seem to have accomplished is building up a win-win situation for everyone, instead of the never ending European nightmare of counter-productivity by design, by obliging everybody to live out a rotten minority‘s dream of universal sadistic infamy.”

for your empathy. If you found my text difficult to read and understand it is perhaps because I found it difficult to understand what I wanted to say, and then to write it down as best I could. In hindsight some points could have been made clearer, but they had first to be found out. I said that although I never qualified for a good commie (100 thick tomes to be read and understood as a starter), never tried to be one and thus never was one, I followed the realisation of communism in various state forms for some decades (since I am as old, alas, as some others here, too), from childhood, and thus I looked at changing phenomena from a changing platform of understanding, but always with sympathy for the project of doing something fundamentally better. There were certain setbacks like the summer of 1968, the summer of 1990 etc. However, since I never was a card bearing representative of any faction I could afford to distribute my sympathies to the worthy ones – and these (and the list of the unworthy ones) changed, too, as demonstrated with that little anomalous European country that did so much for the world, which I understood (or remembered) immediately after having arrived there for the first time in this life, but not before.

So, in the end the decisive question (about a political system or a country as well as about a smart phone or a love affair) is: does it work? and is it good, does it produce good, satisfying results? I wanted to include a quote Brecht, then forgot it, and did not have the text ready anyway. I think it is in his Thoughts while looking at a Chinese tea root lion“: „Whenever we thought we had done a wonderful plan, one of us spread that chinese poster, and we started the questions (written there?)…. and the final and main one being:How do those live who do what we told them?“ (It‘s probably from two different texts…) When the decisive question for the true communist Bert Brecht was not whether it looked like communism and quacked like communism but whether people would be happy with it in the end, why not apply this yardstick to the Chinese comrades? I reported what I found in South China, as a bloody tourist who was treated well everywhere, and I can warmly recommend to everybody to go and have a look, too (hint: in HK every info is in English and Chinese, and in Macao in Portuguese and Chinese, while in China proper you should not be afraid of Chinese script to find your ways). I found it to bring peace upon me (regarding these burning questions whether the Chinese leadership is still on track or lost somewhere in AZ captivity, or, worse, in treacherous union with them…), but now, after the Chinese quiet, in stormy discussions of the type: You, Pepe, who described the Pearl River Delta, are completely wrong because what you saw is capitalistily structured and not communistily, as the textbook stipulates – now, I tried to answer the age old question „How can it be wrong when it feels so right“ (by Skeeter Davis I think).

Doing that I came across an idea I never heard of, and thus, with difficulty, formulated as my own: the real difference of communism vs OurBloodySystem is neither the look and feel, nor a necessity for a commie country to label everything they have and do as „commie“, but a devotion and faithfulness for/to the initial impetus (of bettering the fate of the many and poor) AND the capacity and the stamina to really make it happen. For that you need at least four things: a good understanding of the whole situation, a good plan for improving it, the power to do (initiate and supervise) everything necessary, and the stubbornness (some call it honesty) neither to give up in midway, not to abandon and betray the project at any time afterwards (my question marks). But what is the project: the look and feel or the real life situation of many real people, and their country? In quotation #10 (of a total of 425) in the Little Red Book the author outlines the project of Chinese communism with the words: „(… ths difficult task ) to lead the Chinese people with its several hundred millions into a happy life and rebuild our economically and culturally retarded country into a rich, powerful and culturally highly developed country…“ – making China happy, rich and powerful – sounds more like Brecht and Xi than like Kim. Sorry.

Only after posting the idea of a ship crossed my mind, and later I remembered that helmsman Mao was called „helmsman“ perhaps for this reason (cf quotation #305/425): when your project is to bring the passengers to a place or situation where their life will be much better you will need to have a good knowledge of navigation and of your ship and of your destination, the ship should be in order and your should know how to steer it, but everything else on board is not your concern. You have many collaborators who know their thing better than you do, and are obliged to do it the best way, never interfering, but supporting the whole journey. In that comparison of a country with a ship the leadership is responsible for the whole enterprise – this is their job – and many others are responsible for other jobs, their jobs. This seems to be a distinction which Communist China still makes (the industrial enterprises in China are doing their business in various forms including various forms of capitalism; they are informed what is needed and provide it). „Knowing the situation, the navigation, the destination“ in the state dimension is the science founded by Marx and then continued by others of diagnosing what the problem is and how to solve it. One can also compare it to an engineer‘s work of, say, constructing a bridge in the mountains: it is very difficult, but engineers know that and what to do about it – shaping the future through knowledge and means and the authority to do what is right and necessary. What professionals, good and bad ones, do know, too, and try to prevent or to counter with preparedness, are unforeseen massive difficulties – amateurs hear the first time of them when they happen to them.

So, I contrasted the professionalism introduced into practical politics by Marx and his followers with what occurred to me to be at this moment for the first time, in contrast to that basis of communism, as „amateurism“. Look at the EU and the refugees: one says this, the other that, neither under pressure nor before nor after the pressure are they able to develop an engineer‘s plan to solve the problem. And the main reason is that we in the FreeWest have everywhere a dishonest dual regime, where hidden professional criminals perform professional crimes for their own enrichment abusing the naiveté and incompetence of the visible official commanders of the ship: the president, the chancellor etc. etc. The „sovereign“, the people, may then elect a new captain, hoping (! yes, no „imperative mandates“, please) that in order to reach the destination of a happy Common Wealth at last, he may turn around which „will finally be the right direction“. Nobody has any plan, any map, any proven ability of steering anything. Nigel Farage was pointing out very nicely in his good bye speech to his UKIP party: „Let‘s be frank: nobody of you ever worked in a real profession, in a real job.“ This is because the whole instrument of Western Democracy is just as much an enrichment scheme as economy, „social services“, defense etc: if I present myself the right way, everybody will vote for me and I will become rich, happy, mighty… but not wise and just and the one who will bring the others to where they want to be…. The hidden criminals know all that, since *they“ are professionals, and approach those amateurs who do get votes to make them a proposal they can‘t refuse. Or else.

I‘ll try now to condense all of this to a one or two line jingle, but it may take a while.

Although jingles are nice, and I admit I am programmed to look for them, your lengthy expression of your thoughts is very valuable. That contrast between amateurs and professionals, and between professionals in practical politics as opposed to professionals in crime (looting, as Paul Craig Roberts would say) really gets to the core of the struggle in modern politics, I think. This is the first time I’ve heard it expressed in these terms, and I think they are very accurate ones!

About twenty years ago, my spiritual guru told me that in fifty years China will rule the world and that I should be learning to speak Mandarin because that will be the second language my grandchildren will be taught in schools… (In Brazil)
Twenty years ago, his prediction sounded absurd and far fetched. Now I see it possible! Peace and prosperity for all people!

I listened through the whole talk. Sorry to say but the article is not quoting Xi’s words at all. Disinformation of the worst kind. Please check your sources! Otherwise your credibility will be completely lost.

According to Wayne Madsen, America and its Turkish vassals are preparing for future terror attacks on Russia and China by using Syria and Iraq as USA-protected safe havens for Chechen and Uighur “moderate” terrorists.

From books on the subject I’ve learned that in the late 1940’s and to the middle 1950’s,China had no intention of building nuclear weapons. Mao in particular was very opposed to the idea. He didn’t understand the absolute destructive power of those weapons. And believed that China’s enormous population would be able to field enough soldiers to make nuclear weapons ineffective in attacking China.

Some others in the leadership,and especially in the PLA wanted a nuclear program. The military intelligence services and their Soviet colleagues (in those days the USSR and China were very friendly. And in most areas of the Chinese military there were Soviet advisers and trainers helping to modernize China’s military power) were very aware of the “bombs” power.And informed the Chines leadership of it . After a long period Mao changed his thinking on the need for,and China’s ability to build those weapons.

After the PRC was established in 1949 a Chinese born nuclear scientist living in the US (who had worked on the US nuclear program) returned to China. And he was asked if it would be possible for China to develop a nuclear weapons program. He said yes and was recruited for that program. The Soviets had refused to help China to develop nuclear weapons. But they had constructed for China a nuclear energy facility. So unknown (for a while,until the Soviets discovered it) to them, the Chinese harnessed that into their program.Through a great deal of “trial and error” the Chinese developed nuclear weapons.

While that gives a short overview of the “way” China became a nuclear power. That doesn’t explain the “why” ,the great motivation,for having those weapons. For that we have to “thank” the US. They are basically responsible for that. Though I doubt they today would like to “take the credit” for that.During that period,the US was “very,very” belligerent to China.The PRC forces had driven the US allied ROC forces out of mainland China. And they retreated to Taiwan. There was a lot of fear in the US that the PLA would finish the job and liberate Taiwan as well.The US planned to use nuclear weapons against China if that happened. And US naval ships constantly patrolled the area. They threatened the Chinese regularly. And a low level war was fought on the seas with mostly artillery bombardments and small raiding parties.It was the “hair-trigger” years of the Cold War.China saw the US support for the Taiwan based ROC as a direct threat. And when the Korean War erupted and the US armies advanced towards the Chinese border they believed a World War was coming.During that war the US also never lost an opportunity to threaten to “nuke” China into dust.Probably the only reason they “didn’t” use nuclear weapons on Chinese troops ,was that the USSR had shortly before exploded the “Soviet bomb”. And the US wasn’t the sole nuclear power anymore. They feared that the Soviets would retaliate if the US used nuclear weapons against China. While the Chinese military leadership was grateful to the Soviets. They asked themselves if they could always count on the Soviets for protection. And if not,shouldn’t they themselves have a “Chinese bomb”.By time China’s relationship with the USSR had began to deteriorate,China was well on its way to having their own nuclear arsenal. Had they not had nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War. There is a good chance that the US would have carried out a bombing campaign inside China. To stop the supplies coming from there to North Vietnam. But having those weapons the US didn’t want to risk it.So China’s fears and thoughts were proved correct. Their fear that they couldn’t always depend on the USSR for protection. And their thoughts that having their own nuclear weapons would stop potential US aggression towards them. Times have “somewhat” changed today. They have seen that good relations with Russia is a great “plus” for China. And that the insane neo-cons in the US seem to not believe in the MAD doctrine anymore. So what the future holds is unclear at present,both for China and the World.

I have one point though. Mao said in open forum that ‘Atomic bomb’ is a ‘paper tiger’ and the might of PLA is enough to deter all their foes. But, Mao actually sought technical know-how for Atomic bomb from USSR (post-Korean War), as a deterrent against USA’s warmongering.
Apart from ideological breakup (Mao’s objection to Khruschev’s lies about Stalin) so-called ‘non-proliferation’ (Khruschev’s unwillingness) of nuclear bomb know-how with China also was a cause of breakup between ruling parties of USSR and China in end 1950s. China had to work on a mode of trial-and-error to successful test of Atomic bomb.

Since no one can produce a Chinese source (government media outlet, authoritative) for the quotes, the quotes from President Xi should be discounted.

They are fabricated, extrapolated, wishful and mythical.

I’ve done some research over the years (14 yrs) and his speeches or comments are carefully prepared and presented and archived all over the vast Media sources.

These are ether. And to claim they are all over Russian sources does not give them any validity.
“Putin says given the right amount of money, he’d surrender Moscow in a heartbeat.”

That would be all over US media. Should you believe it?

Russia and China are moving integration closer. They are never going to form an alliance. They are unequals in every way. They fit one another in many ways, but each has its own national needs.

Where they converge is in the Far East and Asia Pacific waterways. Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea, East China Sea and South China Sea.

The Far East, the Korean Peninsula, the Straits of Taiwan and the Arctic routes are common regions of interest.

Japan rising militarily, North Korean nuclear and missile threats, North Korean obstruction of Peninsula development with the South Koreans, China and Russia, and the US now using Indian navy and Australian navy in the Asian Pacific zone all are common interests.

However, both nations play differently with economics and diplomacy. For instance, Russia is wooing Japan for economic reasons. China is stiff-arming Japan for hegemonic reasons.

China is not welcomed by Vietnam, Russia is embraced by Vietnam.

So one unified alliance is improbable.

One integrated military defense agains the Hegemon is happening. S400s, the top jets, the top submarine technology,the Glonass satellite system replacing GPS, etc. integrate Russia and China for defensive purposes against the Hegemon and its vassals.

But the two are not an alliance.

This article is very weak and not worthy of publication, in my opinion.

I’d at the least add an updated update stating no one has found a Chinese government source for the quotes that can be verified. And I’d mark it in Capital Letters thusly.

It is beneath the high standards of the Vineyard.

It adds to the delusion people have that some magic will come of China and Russia alliance.
They are in survival mode. They are both under massive hybrid war and attempts of containment.

It is similar to talking about the BRICS. They have disintegrated as a power bloc.
This isn’t 2013-2014. Everything changed since then. The Hegemon is powerful and the opposition is weak.

Time for reality checks. Using fiction to make a substantial argument is juvenile.
The quotes, as far as we can tell, are total fiction.
The alliance is total wishful thinking.

Hi Larchmonter445, I agree with your critics in regard of the quotes in question. I even agree that Russia and China don’t have enough in common to build an alliance like the NATO once was. But what they have in common is the following: Both could withstand an attack by NATO with conventional weapons alone as long….China hasn’t fallen in case of an attack on Russia and vice versa for China. Both face the imminent threat of NATO, for China it is the problem that they could cut off their maritime supply roads. For Russia it is the threat of an direct attack or some kind of color revolution. If China falls it stands nearly encircled and tactically alone. So – Russia can’t afford to let China fall, so it will help it one or the other way. And China can’t fall as long nobody tries to “nuke them”. Nobody will -hopefully – try that as long Russia behaves in way that everybody believes that they won’t tolerate such a step. On the other hand China neither can afford to have some kind of “Ukranian-style” hostile Russia on its northern border (Kasakhstan and Mongolia don’t count as a buffer in this direction) – the case of a color revolution, nor will it risk that Russia might be forced to use nuclear weapons to defend itself if they can avoid that by helping Russia even with troops. In that way a kind of coalition between the two states (should) already exist. I apologize for my bad English, I’m not used to write in it (I’m German) and hope my arguments are understandable. Regards

Your English is fine. Thanks for the reply.
What is clear is the two nations will support one another in the circumstances you describe (a large coalition like NATO or US with its Asian vassals in some conflict). They train together in integrated land and naval exercises with the intention of being able to fight alongside or near to one another.

But, except for SCO, there is no alliance going to take place. Both have the need to be independent superpowers. That is the limiting factor. And alliance is not needed. Both understand the common threat. That’s enough. They have each other’s back.

Excellent summary, Gunnar. You give important points on why Russia and China need to support each other, and these points make their collaboration inevitable – so inevitable that they form a stronger basis than what any formal “alliance” can guarantee. For indeed the fall of one would surely endanger the existence of the other, whereas the strengthening of one would help in the survival of the other.

Regarding the views of others here on certain “contradictions” in Russian and Chinese foreign policies, I believe that Russia’s close relationship with Vietnam helps Vietnam not to be totally dominated by the “sole superpower” and that China’s relations with many Eastern and Western European states can help provide more realistic views of Russia in those countries. China and Russia cannot afford to give up contacts with nations the other have problems with, for to do so would be to consign such nations to the exclusive embrace of the “sole superpower.” Indeed, the effectiveness of US foreign policy has always been its ability to reach out to nations that have been or are still its enemies. The latest example of this is the re-establishment of ties with Cuba – an act that softens Latin American hostility to the US which, however, does not mean that the island nation is no longer considered for regime change.

Thanks for this article.
It is an excellent reflection of the world to come on this planet.
The words attributed to President Xi Jinping are divinely inspired. He and President Putin are Christed individuals here to assist humanity to transition into a golden age. You only have to read these words to know they will manifest. IMHO, if Xi Jinping did not say them, he should have, because they are prophetic and need to be said, thought and repeated, so that they can manifest. These words reflect the reality of the spiritual relationship between China and Russia and they predict what has to happen and will happen on this planet after the return from the Magnetic Reversal Evacuation, if not before.

The challenge for all of us is to rise above the Talmudic lies that swamp our world, and the social engineering that causes us to see ourselves as separate from and in competition with our neighbour and all that is. We aren’t, and the words attributed to President Xi Jinping reflect the reality that all is One in the spiritual sense. That world is beginning to manifest and the words attributed to President Xi Jinping reflect that. Perceiving China and Russia, and humanity generally, as having irreconcilable differences is yesterday’s paradigm.
Peace and Blessings,
Ron
************

I refer to my comment a bit more upward and warn you, Ron Chapman, from idolizing Xi Jinping as “christed” only because of his sweet words, if they have been well-translated at all, which many doubt here! “Prophetic”? I´d first want a complete, correct translation before I dare say so!

Moreover, our sense of separateness one from the other, both as persons and tribes / families, has never been created by Social Engineering or by the Talmud
(hah hah, some people incriminate Talmud for almost everything… dont they have better ideas?)
but it is part of our inborn instinct pattern, and it ist good for something, it is not an aberration.
I think that ancient tribes developed together with their habitats
(i.e. geological territories – old ideas about “Blut und Boden”, which are out of fashion now but were in big fashion some decades ago, surely have a true core, but this core is not which the Nazis wanted to see but something much more benign… every native tribe adapts to its territory in order to SERVE ITS LAND WELL, this is the truth, nothing else!)
and in accordance with the needs of their habitats;
this norming of human wishes and customs according to the habitat was good and right,
at least it was better than what we do today by norming our habitats according to our greedy wishes and weird customs…
but it required or requires a “closed society” in which, naturally, the own customs always have to be the true human ones, strangers are looked at with some realistic mistrust, and neighbor tribes get watched with some realistic suspicion.

Probably humankind will need another period of Tribalism after the breakdown of “globalism”
in order to really learn what Globalism would have been good for, and to have a better try later!

NB The often-quoted mantra of “All is One” is a spiritual concept that pertains to Life and Universe as a whole, but it has never been meant to be used as a sweet pink paint over all the natural differences, without which the material world could not exist, and which have good reasons to be.

NB 2 that guru mentioned above was wrong… because modern Chinese rather learn English or Russian than to impose upon foreigners to learn Mandarin. I think Mandarin will get out of use.

There are lots of details that dont rhyme well in this article. Logic shows they are Propaganda.

“The West seeks to turn all of the Chinese people into mindless murderers fashioned from the Ukrainian Right Sector to de-populate the Eurasian territories for the West” Heeh? How? give more details please. I thought Ukrainian Right Sector got more than enough mercenaries from the WEST!

“If Russia disappears, China also will” A loud “Heeh?” again! Russia was still a bunch of tribal territories behind Ural combined with a, practically quite loosely reigned, feudalist Czardom before Ural, when China had been an Empire with a centralist administration apparatus for 3000 years. In fact, if China wished to swallow Russia up and create an “Union” between these two big parts of the world THIS way, they would perhaps succeed… without throwing one bomb… just by economical slyness. the Chinese are currently buying up whole regions of Western world and Africa for “an apple and an egg”. How much of the Russian big companies did they already buy?

China wishes to bring to the world methods of “better governance”. God forbid, please stay away, was my first thought at this word. “Xi said China will actively participate in the building of global governance system and strive to contribute Chinese wisdom to the improvement of global governance” reads the whole quotation. to me this sounds as if a negative New World Order is still looming near even if USA lose their pathological overweight in the world – and even worse! For, the Americans at least have to pretend they work for human rights and human benefit, while the Chinese, who say proudly (!) that they got no Bible, i.e. that they disbelieve in the Golden Rule that set human welfare on a principal place in our Western world-view (and hopefully still does at least in many honest Westerners´ hearts), feel free to use every means to gain what they want.
Dont tell me the Work Camps, where thousands of Chinese – for having committed this or that felony including having uttered oppositional opinions in public – are kept as slaves and exploited by factory work literally until they perish, much like it was in KZs, are non-existent. They are as non-existent as the Climate Change (LOL) I mean, today´s China is not a benign power; it is in NO aspect more benevolent than USA and in many aspects it is worse, and its official image of human beings lacks Respect so much that, if it governed the world, the latter would become one big slave labor camp. Remember, it was only 100 years ago that slave trade still existed in China. And as a big difference from the West that abolished slave trade some decades earlier, they had no Harriet Beecher-Stowe to write an Uncle Tom novel – because they had no Gospel and no Golden Rule. All they had, and have, is … sweet words and polite manners. All in them is facade.

It is a fact that China is ready for hot war against the US. It is a fact that no-one informed by Western media knows this readiness, preparation. Only sideways does Saker acknowledge this. Why? Because of fear, the Saker living in the US itself?

We have friends that do charitable work in China and he said that the Chinese have built runways all over the place in neighborhoods. Why?

My son, when he was about 8yrs old, “saw” Chinese fighter jets attaching the Washington DC area. He “saw” a red star on the jets.

A woman minister in the DC area, very well respected, is now 102, and she was awakened one night to the sound of jets and helicopters and chaos. She thought that DC was under attack, but God told her he was only giving her a vision of what was to come and she was to help prepare a place of refuge for those fleeing the belt way. She now has that refuge. God told her that she would live to experience what He showed her. Well, she was much younger when He gave her the open vision and now she is 102, a vibrant 102.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.